The heirs of John D. Rockefeller attacked ExxonMobil this week, a company that is also a descendant of the famed oil baron.

The Rockefeller Family Fund has announced that it will divest its assets from fossil fuels. In a statement posted on its website, the fund said that, due to the need to eliminate fossil fuels that contribute to climate change, it “makes little sense – financially or ethically – to continue holding investments in these companies. There is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons.”

The Rockefeller Family Fund is a philanthropy set up by the fourth-generation descendants of John D. Rockfeller, and shouldn’t be confused with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the third-generation organization, which announced its decision to divest from fossil fuels in 2014. Related: Oil Prices Fall Fast On Huge Inventory Build

The Rockefeller Family Fund took a parting shot at ExxonMobil in its statement, which is the largest descendant of Standard Oil Company. “We would be remiss if we failed to focus on what we believe to be the morally reprehensible conduct on the part of ExxonMobil.” The organization said that ExxonMobil “worked since the 1980s to confuse the public about climate change’s march, while simultaneously spending millions to fortify its own infrastructure against climate change’s destructive consequences and track new exploration opportunities as the Arctic’s ice receded.”

The foundation, of course, is referring to the news reports that surfaced in 2015 which alleged that ExxonMobil has known for decades about the role that oil and gas play in fueling climate change, but actively funded campaigns to obscure the public and scientific understanding about climate change. In November 2015, the New York attorney general opened up an investigation into the oil supermajor.

“Appropriate authorities will determine if the company violated any laws, but as a matter of good governance, we cannot be associated with a company exhibiting such apparent contempt for the public interest,” the Rockefeller Family Fund wrote. The Fund’s $130 million in assets will be withdrawn from ExxonMobil, plus all coal and tar-sands companies, with proceeds redirected into investments that have some sort of social responsibility element to them. Related: Brussel’s Terror Attack Drives Europe Further Into Terrorism Rabbit Hole

ExxonMobil dismissed the divestment announcement. "It's not surprising that they're divesting from the company since they're already funding a conspiracy against us," a company spokesman told CNBC on March 23. Additionally, in a March 14 op-ed in The Los Angeles Times, Suzanne McCarron, Exxon’s vice president of public and government affairs, rejected the allegations that the company covered up climate science. “…the recent accusations against ExxonMobil make no sense — that is, until you learn that the anti-ExxonMobil campaign, and the supposedly unbiased media reports it rests upon, is in fact funded by groups actively opposed to the use of oil and natural gas,” McCarron wrote.

Separately, the divestment news came in the same week that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission decided that ExxonMobil must offer a climate change resolution as part of its annual shareholder proxy. The SEC sent a letter to the oil supermajor, which was seen by Reuters, saying that the company must allow shareholders to vote on whether or not to require the company to detail the risks to shareholders from climate change or potential legislation meant to address climate change.

Any legislation, such as a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or other measures meant to block the production of oil and gas, would likely present a financial risk to the company and reduce shareholder value. ExxonMobil opposed the requirement to detail those risks, arguing that it already provides adequate information. The SEC disagreed. "It does not appear that Exxon Mobil's public disclosures compare favorably with the guidelines of the proposal," Justin Kisner, an attorney-adviser with the SEC, wrote in the letter, referring to a proposal by the New York Comptroller to require ExxonMobil to offer more detailed information. The Comptroller oversees New York’s $178 billion pension fund. Related: Record Loss For Petrobras As Political And Economic Crisis Worsen

“This is a major victory for investors who are working to address the risks that global warming presents to our portfolios,” NY Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli wrote in a statement. “The Securities and Exchange Commission’s determination upholds shareholders’ rights to ask for vital information. Investors need to know if ExxonMobil is taking necessary steps to prepare for a lower carbon future, particularly now in the wake of the Paris agreement. We look forward to presenting our proposal to fellow shareholders at ExxonMobil’s annual meeting.”

History has come full circle, with the descendants of one of the world’s most famous oil icons deciding that they will move their fortune, which was built on oil, away from fossil fuels. The Rockefeller Family Fund recognized their long history in making money from oil production. “But history moves on, as it must,” the organization wrote.

Related posts

What a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites. Sell that stock and take the capital loss. And push down the value of the stock while you're at it

R Jensen on March 24 2016 said:

Now you can see the source of all the climate hysteria. Good--put all your assets in Sun Edison.

Kie on March 25 2016 said:

Unfortunately there is a bigger Rockefeller fund which is not divesting - the Rockefeller Foundation.

CENTURION on March 25 2016 said:

Frauds. Spoiled rotten brats.

They really care? Give the money back. What ever you inherited from this nasty oil is therefore evil and bad. GIve it back.

Each of you should donate everything you have, that is linked to Standard Oil, to a worthy cause (that in itself is doubtful). BUT to keep the money and then complain about where it came from is just sickening.

You don't like OIL PROFITS? I do. Give it all to me. You will feel so much better getting rid of this evil and washing your hands of it and making a real sacrifice for humanity, you jerks.

GREG on March 25 2016 said:

Yes, it's very easy to play "holier than thou" after one's made millions off energy investments and are sitting on billions of dollars. If the foundation truly felt "guilt" and "remorse" with respect to their energy portfolio, why don't they "donate" all of the earnings from the fund-at least from the 80's when the supposed fraud began-to the NGO's supporting the underprivileged of the US?

Actually, I was surprised to see that only $130 million was invested in energy stocks(Exxon), tar sands, etc.

Voltaire on March 25 2016 said:

...and that climate-change conspiracy all stems from the good ol' "cause-and-effect" conspiracy. Wise people should know there is no such thing as cause and effect (or action-reaction if you will)... Isaac Newton was indeed one of the greatest socialist charlatans ever.

The burning of hydrocarbons does not pollute, proof: smoke coming out of my diesel truck disappears by itself.

Knowledge is the greatest hoax ever. Long live metaphysics!

ACE814 on March 25 2016 said:

These "limousine liberals" make me sick. How dare you attack the O&G industry that has provided EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO!! The entire Rockefeller lineage would be just a bunch of normal people actually working for a living instead of being coddled their entire existence if it wasn't for John D. I'm proud to say I'm a denier of man-made climate change! We are being fooled into a desperate attempt to tax our carbon footprint. Computer models are easily manipulated for an agenda, and that's exactly what's happening. I have yet to have anyone explain the disappearance of the glaciers that once stretched as far south as NE Kansas? Where did they go and why did they regress back into Canada 14,000 years ago carving out the great lakes? Was man spewing CO2 14,000 years ago causing the glaciers to melt from the warming taking place? Were the mammoths driving SUV's? The funny thing is, I'm all for investing our money and time into alternative energy sources because I am a realist. We only have a finite supply of oil & natural gas, but what I hate is that people vilify it and demand that we stop when it is doing absolutely NOTHING to the environment. A volcano emits more CO2 in one eruption than humans have done in a lifetime! We need every single option when it comes to energy production, why not embrace the fact that O&G has allowed people to live in areas that previously had been impossible to imagine? Everyone should read the book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by Alex Epstein. A very good read for those who agree or maybe disagree. Thank you

Roy Barton on March 25 2016 said:

They will also have to quit flying, driving their Suburbans and using:

Solvents

Diesel fuel

Motor Oil

Bearing Grease

Ink

Floor Wax

Ballpoint Pens

Football Cleats

Upholstery

Sweaters

Boats

Insecticides

Bicycle Tires

Sports Car Bodies

Nail Polish

Fishing lures

Dresses

Tires

Golf Bags

Perfumes

Cassettes

Dishwasher parts

Tool Boxes

Shoe Polish

Motorcycle Helmet

Caulking

Petroleum Jelly

Transparent Tape

CD Player

Faucet Washers

Antiseptics

Clothesline

Curtains

Food Preservatives

Basketballs

Soap

Vitamin Capsules

Antihistamines

Purses

Shoes

Dashboards

Cortisone

Deodorant

Footballs

Putty

Dyes

Panty Hose

Refrigerant

Percolators

Life Jackets

Rubbing Alcohol

Linings

Skis

TV Cabinets

Shag Rugs

Electrician's Tape

Tool Racks

Car Battery Cases

Epoxy

Paint

Mops

Slacks

Insect Repellent

Oil Filters

Umbrellas

Yarn

Fertilizers

Hair Coloring

Roofing

Toilet Seats

Fishing Rods

Lipstick

Denture Adhesive

Linoleum

Ice Cube Trays

Synthetic Rubber

Speakers

Plastic Wood

Electric Blankets

Glycerin

Tennis Rackets

Rubber Cement

Fishing Boots

Dice

Nylon Rope

Candles

Trash Bags

House Paint

Water Pipes

Hand Lotion

Roller Skates

Surf Boards

Shampoo

Wheels

Paint Rollers

Shower Curtains

Guitar Strings

Luggage

Aspirin

Safety Glasses

Antifreeze

Football Helmets

Awnings

Eyeglasses

Clothes

Toothbrushes

Ice Chests

Footballs

Combs

CD's & DVD's

Paint Brushes

Detergents

Vaporizers

Balloons

Sun Glasses

Tents

Heart Valves

Crayons

Parachutes

Telephones

Enamel

Pillows

Dishes

Cameras

Anesthetics

Artificial Turf

Artificial limbs

Bandages

Dentures

Model Cars

Folding Doors

Hair Curlers

Cold cream

Movie film

Soft Contact lenses

Drinking Cups

Fan Belts

Car Enamel

Shaving Cream

Ammonia

Refrigerators

Golf Balls

Toothpaste

Gasoline

Lee James on March 25 2016 said:

Most petroleum is burned, and is consumed in the short term. Folks don't quarrel much with the longer term, relatively low-volume uses such polymers, lubricants and phase-change refrigerants.

Burning up in a couple of hundred years what it took millions of years to make underground does not make a lot of sense -- especially when byproducts of combustion are now known to be so harmful to health and good ecology. You can toot petroleum's horn for some things more than others.